If the government has the responsibility to not create unsafe situations, why do we have a military at all? Rape is a danger for women in combat; so is combat. Just as we work to make combat as safe as possible, we should work to make "being around soldiers" as safe as possible, which means aggressively curtailing rape.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the rape rate is for men in the military?

Oh, then you're just making a slippery slope argument, i.e. that by not allowing women into the military (were it substantially more dangerous) then we must logically take all action to prevent women from making unsafe choices.

It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.

sourmìlk wrote:

Ulc wrote:and what you are saying is "The government should not allow women to enter combat roles due to the danger of being raped". Which is directly the same as the government choosing to deny positions to women to keep them safe, that the government should dictate, for their own safety, what a woman can do. There is NO difference between the two statements, and both of them are horrible when you stop to consider the implications for more than 10 seconds.

The government deciding what women can do for their own safety comprises a much larger set of actions than the government refusing to create situations that are going to be unsafe. Thus the two are not equivalent. For example, passing a law telling women that they can't go outside a secluded women-only area is an element of the former set but not of the latter.

The government "creates a situation that is going to be unsafe" when it sends people, with guns, to go shoot at other people with guns. It's the fucking military; it's by definition "unsafe". Further, women are volunteering to join combat units; the government isn't forcing anyone into an unsafe situation because the military is wholly voluntary. The only situation the government has created which is unsafe is one wherein it's okay to rape in the military - the responsibility of the government is then to, uh, break rape culture in the military. Not discriminate against women.

sourmìlk wrote:

Ulc wrote:

There is no misinterpretation here, there's just you perpetuating a horrible pierce of misogyny, namely that it's society's role to deny womens right for their own safety, and all the while you're trying to appear like the knight in shining armour. Seriously sourmilk, read what the fuck you're writing! And while you're at it, stopping moving goalposts across international borders might be a nice idea as well.

My argument has never been that we should deny women rights for their own safety: see above. Before you accuse me of misogyny and not "read[ing] what the fuck [I'm] writing", perhaps you should ensure that you understand my argument. Contrary to popular opinion, I tend not to hold egregiously immoral and bigoted views. If you think I am holding one, please consider it more probable (or at least equally possible) that you misunderstand me and not that I'm a maniac. I think you're reading in attitude from superficially similar arguments you've heard into what I'm saying, but I can't say for sure. And when have I moved goalposts?

Most bigots don't believe they're bigotted, and the nature of privilege is that the privileged don't see it. You're actively promoting sex-based discrimination under the guise of "protecting women". You're punishing women's careers and ability to advance in the military (nevermind their right to non-discrimination) instead of punishing, y'know, rapists. You're arguing for the status quo, and when the status quo is "fucking bigotted" you're arguing for bigotry.

Nordic Einar wrote:It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.

My understanding, and this could be wrong, is that homosexuals and african americans were not routinely raped.

The government "creates a situation that is going to be unsafe" when it sends people, with guns, to go shoot at other people with guns. It's the fucking military; it's by definition "unsafe". Further, women are volunteering to join combat units; the government isn't forcing anyone into an unsafe situation because the military is wholly voluntary. The only situation the government has created which is unsafe is one wherein it's okay to rape in the military - the responsibility of the government is then to, uh, break rape culture in the military. Not discriminate against women.

See above: the military itself is a necessary unsafe situation.

Most bigots don't believe they're bigotted, and the nature of privilege is that the privileged don't see it. You're actively promoting sex-based discrimination under the guise of "protecting women". You're punishing women's careers and ability to advance in the military (nevermind their right to non-discrimination) instead of punishing, y'know, rapists. You're arguing for the status quo, and when the status quo is "fucking bigotted" you're arguing for bigotry.

No, I'm not promoting discrimination under the guise of protecting women, I'm promoting theoretical discrimination on the basis that we shouldn't condone rape. Creating a situation in which we know rape will frequently happen is condoning rape. I think that bigotry towards women actually requires some judgment towards women, and I'm not making any judgment towards women. I don't support, under certain theoretical circumstances, sex based discrimination because women shouldn't be allowed to make unsafe decisions, I theoretically support it because we shouldn't create unsafe situations, regardless of who should choose or why she should choose to enter them.

Also, when have I ever opposed eliminating rape culture in the military? I really think you're assuming a stance I don't hold, because I have done nothing but agree with the notion that rape culture should be eliminated in the military, that the military should take rape accusations more seriously, and that the military should more harshly punish rapists.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Ghostbear wrote:Even with that rate as a guideline, there's still many other complications, such as the specific situations of individual women. Someone signing up from an area with a greater crime rate will have a different base rate, as will different income levels, educations, and I think even ethnicities. Someone signing up that's in an abusive relationship could very well be better off no matter what the expected military rate is. We can't reasonably filter through all of those variables (not least of which because not many of them will be known to us!) during recruitment, but we can trust those women to make a decision for themselves if we give them the right information beforehand.

This is the whole point of giving women the right to make their own decisions -- for some of them, that 30% risk is an improvement. Read that again; not every person's situation is the same -- you're damning those that are outside of the "average" range, and for what? To protect women that you think are too incompetent to make their own decisions, so much so, that they need you -- a male (as far as I have gathered) -- to make that decision for them? For some others, they wouldn't want to be intimidated away from something they want to do. And for even other women, they'll consider it an acceptable risk. Who are you to decide for them what is their best course of action? Are you OK telling every woman who would be worse off from being denied the right (presumably, about 70% of those that would serve) that you made their life worse in order to protect them from their inability to make proper decisions?

Also, I find your continued usage of "creating a situation" abhorrent: giving equal rights should not be seen as a "creating" a scenario. Forcing integration of the school system "created" a scenario where blacks would be more likely to be bullied and looked down upon by their peers -- yet I expect no one here (including yourself) would argue that that was the wrong thing to do. The government wasn't creating that scenario, it was granting equal rights and protection under to the law to a group of people in a way that they did not have it before. For someone who often speaks of rights, you are treating them very trivially in this discussion.

Ghostbear wrote:This is the whole point of giving women the right to make their own decisions -- for some of them, that 30% risk is an improvement. Read that again; not every person's situation is the same -- you're damning those that are outside of the "average" range, and for what? To protect women that you think are too incompetent to make their own decisions, so much so, that they need you -- a male (as far as I have gathered) -- to make that decision for them? For some others, they wouldn't want to be intimidated away from something they want to do. And for even other women, they'll consider it an acceptable risk. Who are you to decide for them what is their best course of action? Are you OK telling every woman who would be worse off from being denied the right (presumably, about 70% of those that would serve) that you made their life worse in order to protect them from their inability to make proper decisions?

I addressed those a while back. Given the reality of the numbers in the military and in real life, it doesn't make sense to bar more women from joining the military.

Also, I find your continued usage of "creating a situation" abhorrent: giving equal rights should not be seen as a "creating" a scenario. Forcing integration of the school system "created" a scenario where blacks would be more likely to be bullied and looked down upon by their peers -- yet I expect no one here (including yourself) would argue that that was the wrong thing to do. The government wasn't creating that scenario, it was granting equal rights and protection under to the law to a group of people in a way that they did not have it before. For someone who often speaks of rights, you are treating them very trivially in this discussion.

Well first, I don't know why we should define serving in the military as a right. I mean, I certainly believe in discriminating as little as possible when it comes to the military, and indeed all things, but I'm not sure I've seen it defined as a right. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be defined as a right. I haven't really generated an opinion yet as to whether serving in the military qualifies as a right.

As for resolving segregation: if it were the case that 30% of the African American students were to be raped (assuming a near-zero rate in the purely African American schools), I don't think we could morally justify resolving segregation. It would have, in fact, done more harm than good. Particularly seeing as, in that case, you are forcing the students into situations in which they would hypothetically be more likely to be raped. I get that this is a more utilitarian argument than I normally make, but I think that the (hypothetical) danger of the situation is so substantial that a very utilitarian argument starts having some merit here.

That said, this argument makes much more sense as a response to the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to make the point that we need to force people to do only safe things, I'm trying to say that we shouldn't create new scenarios in which we know unsafe things will happen. Your argument here addresses the second point, and is more relevant than what's been said earlier in the thread, so I'm hoping that means I'm making myself clearer.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:I addressed those a while back. Given the reality of the numbers in the military and in real life, it doesn't make sense to bar more women from joining the military.

You didn't address those points -- you addressed the facts. The facts presented caused you to change your view, however those points are directed at your logic and reasoning. Your reasoning being "if there is a large enough increase in the chance of harm, we shouldn't let them join the military". That logic assumes that you can make a all encompassing rule that works best for everyone in a situation. It doesn't work best for everyone, in fact it works worse for many of them. It also is based on the basic assumption that we can not trust women (and women specifically) to make their own decisions about their lives. That you will decide what risks are acceptable to them, that you are the arbiter of what harms they need to be protected from (for instance, you don't seem to see death as nearly as bad of an outcome, while I expect the vast majority would at least see it as a similar or worse outcome -- otherwise you'd be arguing for the removal of all combat roles for everyone, since people are significantly more likely to die from them!), that you know what is right for them. Your entire argument can be boiled down to you thinking women are too incompetent to make their own decisions, since military service for women is 100% voluntary. Why should you make their decisions?

sourmìlk wrote:Well first, I don't know why we should define serving in the military as a right. I mean, I certainly believe in discriminating as little as possible when it comes to the military, and indeed all things, but I'm not sure I've seen it defined as a right. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be defined as a right. I haven't really generated an opinion yet as to whether serving in the military qualifies as a right.

There are different kinds of rights. There are those that we feel are special and need specific protection (free speech, equal protection under the law, etc.), but those aren't the only rights that exist -- they're just the only ones that we have a legal framework to protect and acknowledge. You have the right to use available ingredients to bake a cake. You have the right to jump three times, look to your left and then put on a shoe one handed. You have the right to argue things on internet forums with complete strangers. You have the right to decide to attempt to join the military if you are within a certain age bracket. You don't have to do any of those things (in fact, you probably won't do any of them). Your argument would remove that right from women if the numbers were just a bit different.

sourmìlk wrote:As for resolving segregation: if it were the case that 30% of the African American students were to be raped (assuming a near-zero rate in the purely African American schools), I don't think we could morally justify resolving segregation. It would have, in fact, done more harm than good. Particularly seeing as, in that case, you are forcing the students into situations in which they would hypothetically be more likely to be raped. I get that this is a more utilitarian argument than I normally make, but I think that the (hypothetical) danger of the situation is so substantial that a very utilitarian argument starts having some merit here.

Why does it have to be rape specifically? It's certainly one of the most despicable facets of humanity, but it's not the only harm that people can suffer. It's a balance of the short-term harm vs. the long-term less harm. In the short-term, the students would have suffered some increased risk of harm. In the long term, after the integration kinks are worked out, they end up vastly better off. They're no longer held as a separate entity, granted different levels of freedoms for their own "benefit".

sourmìlk wrote:I addressed those a while back. Given the reality of the numbers in the military and in real life, it doesn't make sense to bar more women from joining the military.

You didn't address those points -- you addressed the facts. The facts presented caused you to change your view, however those points are directed at your logic and reasoning. Your reasoning being "if there is a large enough increase in the chance of harm, we shouldn't let them join the military". That logic assumes that you can make a all encompassing rule that works best for everyone in a situation. It doesn't work best for everyone, in fact it works worse for many of them. It also is based on the basic assumption that we can not trust women (and women specifically) to make their own decisions about their lives. That you will decide what risks are acceptable to them, that you are the arbiter of what harms they need to be protected from (for instance, you don't seem to see death as nearly as bad of an outcome, while I expect the vast majority would at least see it as a similar or worse outcome -- otherwise you'd be arguing for the removal of all combat roles for everyone, since people are significantly more likely to die from them!), that you know what is right for them. Your entire argument can be boiled down to you thinking women are too incompetent to make their own decisions, since military service for women is 100% voluntary. Why should you make their decisions?

I've talked about this plenty of times. See the last page or two.

sourmìlk wrote:Well first, I don't know why we should define serving in the military as a right. I mean, I certainly believe in discriminating as little as possible when it comes to the military, and indeed all things, but I'm not sure I've seen it defined as a right. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be defined as a right. I haven't really generated an opinion yet as to whether serving in the military qualifies as a right.

There are different kinds of rights. There are those that we feel are special and need specific protection (free speech, equal protection under the law, etc.), but those aren't the only rights that exist -- they're just the only ones that we have a legal framework to protect and acknowledge. You have the right to use available ingredients to bake a cake. You have the right to jump three times, look to your left and then put on a shoe one handed. You have the right to argue things on internet forums with complete strangers. You have the right to decide to attempt to join the military if you are within a certain age bracket. You don't have to do any of those things (in fact, you probably won't do any of them). Your argument would remove that right from women if the numbers were just a bit different.[/quote]This doesn't actually address my statement. It doesn't tell me why being in the military should be considered a right. Or maybe I just didn't extract that out of what you said, I don't know.

sourmìlk wrote:As for resolving segregation: if it were the case that 30% of the African American students were to be raped (assuming a near-zero rate in the purely African American schools), I don't think we could morally justify resolving segregation. It would have, in fact, done more harm than good. Particularly seeing as, in that case, you are forcing the students into situations in which they would hypothetically be more likely to be raped. I get that this is a more utilitarian argument than I normally make, but I think that the (hypothetical) danger of the situation is so substantial that a very utilitarian argument starts having some merit here.

Why does it have to be rape specifically? It's certainly one of the most despicable facets of humanity, but it's not the only harm that people can suffer. It's a balance of the short-term harm vs. the long-term less harm. In the short-term, the students would have suffered some increased risk of harm. In the long term, after the integration kinks are worked out, they end up vastly better off. They're no longer held as a separate entity, granted different levels of freedoms for their own "benefit".

Well yeah, of course they're better off after the short term wears off. But I don't think that means we need to disregard the short term. At a certain point, the amount of harm done in the short term can outweigh the good done in the long term. I think that a 30 point increase in the incidence of rape that could go on indefinitely constitutes an amount of short term harm that may outweigh the long term benefit, and is a problem that needs to be solved before integration.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:It doesn't tell me why being in the military should be considered a right.

It's not a right. What is a right is equal treatment — if you have a set of requirements and they are met, the gender / race / sexual orientation / <insert unrelated trait> of the person shouldn't matter.

cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that justifies condoning rape. In this hypothetical situation, we know rape is going to happen. How can we, in good conscience, create a situation in which rape is going to happen? I'm not sure that granting equal treatment justifies the implicit allowance of rape. Not to mention that I think the right to equal treatment means the right to equal treatment without being raped.

sourmìlk wrote:I've talked about this plenty of times. See the last page or two.

Look, we already had this shit-fest. "I already addressed this point" is not a valid response. I've read all of your posts on the last page or two -- a good chunk of them have been quoted by, in response to, or otherwise communicating with, me! Do. Not. Tell. Me. I. Have. Not. Read. Them. I've read your posts, I've read your argument. I find your "addressing" of that point to be a combination of (1) insufficient and (2) non-existent. Otherwise I would not have reiterated it! You have addressed the issue of the specific numbers. You have not addressed the argument that I made in the slightest. If you still feel you have, then quote your post where you did so.

If you find my addressing of your point to be insufficient, you have to explain how it's insufficient, not reiterate your point. That just tells me that you didn't read my response. I didn't say you hadn't read my posts. Whether you read them or not is irrelevant. You are responding as though they are not there. Would you prefer "Stop ignoring my posts" to "I've already addressed that"?

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:If you find my addressing of your point to be insufficient, you have to explain how it's insufficient, not reiterate your point. That just tells me that you didn't read my response. I didn't say you hadn't read my posts. Whether you read them or not is irrelevant. You are responding as though they are not there. Would you prefer "Stop ignoring my posts" to "I've already addressed that"?

I would prefer you providing some evidence that you did address it, because I don't think you did at all. Quote the relevant comments by you. Link to them. Prove that it exists, if not out of respect, then so I have something to respond to. We do not exist in Planescape -- stating something does not make it reality! I reiterated it because I don't think you addressed it at all. If I made a mistake and you did, telling me you did is the not the right way to do that; telling me you did then quoting the relevant text is.

For the sake of speeding it up, between my original comment on that line of thought and you saying "I already addressed this", you made three posts. The first one is only directed at Ulc, with you stating that they are making a slippery slope argument. It does not address the "different people in different situations" and "your logic assumes women are too incompetent to make their own decisions for themselves" points. Your second post is a single sentence saying it'd be ideal if we didn't need a military; it doesn't address those points either. The third post is directly entirely at Nordic Einar, which continues on the line of "rape is the only harm we need to prevent" and "military is needed" lines of thought. That post, as well, does not address my points in the slightest.

That's not a point, that's a request. And my answer to that request is "no." I am going to expend as little effort as possible as a result of anybody's failure to read what I've already explained.

Also, see the first post, second paragraph. It explains how my views have nothing to do with telling women what they can and can't do for their own safety. I don't know why you only you only would have looked at or absorbed or acted upon the first sentence.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:That's not a point, that's a request. And my answer to that request is "no." I am going to expend as little effort as possible as a result of anybody's failure to read what I've already explained.

It's about providing evidence for your claims. You have made a claim -- that you already addressed a point -- and I think it is a lie. I think you are being dishonest, and that there is zero truth behind that claim. I am stating that it is factually incorrect. I even provided my own evidence for my claim. If you aren't lying, prove it and quote the relevant comments.

sourmìlk wrote:Also, see the first post, second paragraph. It explains how my views have nothing to do with telling women what they can and can't do for their own safety. I don't know why you only you only would have looked at the first sentence.

Pray tell, how does:

sourmìlk wrote:The government deciding what women can do for their own safety comprises a much larger set of actions than the government refusing to create situations that are going to be unsafe. Thus the two are not equivalent. For example, passing a law telling women that they can't go outside a secluded women-only area is an element of the former set but not of the latter.

Address:

Ghostbear wrote:Even with that rate as a guideline, there's still many other complications, such as the specific situations of individual women. Someone signing up from an area with a greater crime rate will have a different base rate, as will different income levels, educations, and I think even ethnicities. Someone signing up that's in an abusive relationship could very well be better off no matter what the expected military rate is. We can't reasonably filter through all of those variables (not least of which because not many of them will be known to us!) during recruitment, but we can trust those women to make a decision for themselves if we give them the right information beforehand.

That wasn't intended to address that (it was intended to address the part where you accused me of misogyny through wanting to deprive women of agency), but that's okay, because I've addressed that elsewhere. Also, you don't get to assume the motivation behind me telling you that I've addressed a point. To do so is ad-hominem. I also shouldn't need to provide evidence that I just made a claim, that's redundant, and I have no reason to believe you'll read it or understand it or absorb it the second time around. If I made a point, it's there. Making it again adds nothing. It just wastes my time.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Nope - or at least, what you're saying is still when you distill it down to the core, pure misogyny. Whether that counts as making yourself clear or not, I leave to you, but that's what you're writing.

but I'm not sure that justifies condoning rape.

It's not fucking condoning rape - it's condoning not making women second rate citizens by way of country wide discriminition based on what kind of genitals they were born with! It's not our place to say "sorry, but those risk are too high" - that's their choice to make. The point you're making is directly that women are that women should be protected against their own will!

Not to mention that I think the right to equal treatment means the right to equal treatment without being raped.

Then deal with the rape part! Don't handle that by removing equal treatment completely, because one of the options is trying to improve a situation, the other is discrimination - and even worse, it's discrimination cloaked in a aura of "ain't I a hero for trying to protect women with discriminating?". It's really perfectly vile.

Let

It explains how my views have nothing to do with telling women what they can and can't do for their own safety.

No. It really doesn't. It might do so in your mind, but in the minds of everyone else here, all of them well formulated, literate people, it doesn't. That leaves two options, a) it's really just bigoted douchebaggery, and as Nordic Einer points you just don't notice or b) You're just that horrible at communication - but when faced with that fact, you refuse to believe that it can't possible be you, making you an arrogant ass.

One of these is true - and neither of them says pretty things about you.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

sourmìlk wrote:I also shouldn't need to provide evidence that I just made a claim, that's redundant, and I have no reason to believe you'll read it or understand it or absorb it the second time around. If I made a point, it's there. Making it again adds nothing. It just wastes my time.

I have already addressed this point:

Spoiler:

Ghostbear wrote:For the sake of speeding it up, between my original comment on that line of thought and you saying "I already addressed this", you made three posts. The first one is only directed at Ulc, with you stating that they are making a slippery slope argument. It does not address the "different people in different situations" and "your logic assumes women are too incompetent to make their own decisions for themselves" points. Your second post is a single sentence saying it'd be ideal if we didn't need a military; it doesn't address those points either. The third post is directly entirely at Nordic Einar, which continues on the line of "rape is the only harm we need to prevent" and "military is needed" lines of thought. That post, as well, does not address my points in the slightest.

That doesn't actually address my point. It ignores it. If I explain why I'm not going to reiterate myself, you don't get to say you've countered by telling me to reiterate myself.

Ulc, not only is that horrible ad-Hominem, it's ad-Hominem that failed to address any of the various points I've made in my arguments aside from simply saying that they're wrong. You keep responding to arguments I'm not making, and then call me a horrible person because of that. Neither of those behaviours is acceptable.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

A: Governments should not create unnecessarily safe situations.B: In (A), "unnecessarily" applies to desegregating on gender lines, because (C)C: Volunteering for the military is not a right.D: A significant increase in rape = "unsafe", where significant is undefined (but an increase from 25% to 30% is not significant)E: Women's freedom and rights should not be curtailed.F: (A) is more important than (E), at least in this instance, partially because of (C)

Sourmilk, please let me know if I have misrepresented your postions.

Those arguing against Sourmilk appear to be arguing some or all of the following:

A: Governments should not create unnecessarily safe situations.B: In (A), "unnecessarily" does not apply to desegregating on gender lines, because (C)C: Equal treatment in military recruitment is a right.D: When a government is faced with an unsafe situation, it should endeavor to correct the aggressors, not the victims.E: Women's freedoms and rights should not be curtailed.F: (E) is more important than (A), at least in this instance, partially because of (C)

Please elaborate if I have misrepresented your positions.

As well, I believe one of the main assumptions not under discussion which should be is that Sourmilk believes this:

sourmìlk wrote:I think that a 30 point increase in the incidence of rape that could go on indefinitely constitutes an amount of short term harm that may outweigh the long term benefit, and is a problem that needs to be solved before integration.

Whereas his opponents would seem to believe that the incidence of rape would, post-integration, quickly be reduced by measures against rapists and rape culture in the military.

To all: the wankery on who already said what is stupid and y'all should all move on to arguing about the topic instead of arguing about the argument. Because that is soooo boring to read. Thanks!

yoni45 wrote:And here I was, hoping to find some interesting discourse on the topic...

You're right, this has gone too far. I'll ignore the troll now.

Though the thread started off (from the 2nd and 3rd posts) talking about these issues... In an attempt to try to steer it back on topic: There's an interesting bit at the end of the original article that I don't think any of us have made much of:

The Original Article wrote:This past winter, the Defense Department published a report saying that nonlinear combat against a shadowy enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan has negated the notion of a frontline behind which women can be kept safe. Working in support roles, 144 women have been killed in action and 865 injured since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Defense Department data. As such, old prohibitions have become irrelevant, according to the report.

It makes an interesting point -- that women serving in modern conflicts are significantly more likely to see combat, even from a non-combat role, that it makes barring them from those combat roles more superfluous than anything else.

I also wonder how this will fit in with the upcoming withdrawal from Afghanistan -- I'd think that a lot of the more misogynistic elements of the armed forces would be able to be evicted easier if we weren't in a situation to "need" to maintain a certain quantity of troops. Perhaps with more women serving and the military being in a better position to discharge problematic elements, the problems might start to make some progress on their own.

You pretty much got that there, and hopefully communicated it more clearly than I have. I would make the correction that while volunteering for the military might not be a right, equal treatment is.

As for portion D of the opponent's arguments: we should absolutely endeavor to correct the aggressors. I'm saying we should do that before introducing them to new victims.

And don't refer to me as a troll. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm here just to piss you off, and saying so is insulting. You all need to stop insulting me. I know I'm annoying, but if you let that get to you, it's you who has the problem.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:Fair enough, but I'm not sure that justifies condoning rape. In this hypothetical situation, we know rape is going to happen. How can we, in good conscience, create a situation in which rape is going to happen? I'm not sure that granting equal treatment justifies the implicit allowance of rape. Not to mention that I think the right to equal treatment means the right to equal treatment without being raped.

If rape is the problem, and most of the rapists are men, rather than denying women the ability to work in the armed forces, wouldn't it make sense to deny men the ability to work in the armed forces?

sourmìlk wrote:You pretty much got that there, and hopefully communicated it more clearly than I have. I would make the correction that while volunteering for the military might not be a right, equal treatment is.

Then how can you in good conscience deny women their right to equal treatment, regardless of the dangers?

As for portion D of the opponent's arguments: we should absolutely endeavor to correct the aggressors. I'm saying we should do that before introducing them to new victims.

I'd like to know how you propose to address the issue of misogyny in the military before you let women in. Are you going to have thought police around? The only real way to address misogyny is for people to see that women can, in fact, get stuff done as well as the men. It takes a while, and you can try and speed the process up with seminars and the what-like, but really, if you try and do that stuff without having the women around, then it's just going to be a huge waste of time.

What we need is to make sure that women actually get support when they're raped instead of being dishonourably discharged because they get slapped with a pre-existing medical condition. We also need to keep tabs on the statistics of rape in the military - then other women can make the informed choice on whether or not they want to take that specific risk when joining (but it is always their risk to take).

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”

nitePhyyre wrote:It isn't about who is to blame. It is about how to get the most effective fighting force.

Those posts weren't about blame, they were about identifying the source of the problem -- once the source is located, you can then attempt to fix it. The problem here is the attitudes and actions of some of the men in the armed forces. So the solution is to get them to not be sexists or rapists to women serving with them (or at all).

Protip: That's what blame means.I think everyone agrees that the solution is to get them to not be sexists or rapists. The question is: Do we expand the scope of the problem then try to fix it, or, do we fix the problem first?

This also leads to the interesting questions of: can we even fix the problem without expanding it first?

Ghostbear wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:Right, because sucking dick or having pigment is comparable to being a foot shorter and lacking 50 pounds of muscle. Derp.

It's too bad they aren't making the physical requirements for women identical to those for men then. Oh wait, that's exactly what they're doing.

Ugh. I totally walked into that one by being a smart-ass. Let's try it again:

nitePhyyre wrote:I'm sorry, but sucking dick or having pigment isn't comparable to a million years of evolutionary instincts.

Ghostbear wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:A) That's easy to say when you aren't the one who is putting their life on the line during this 'short term' period.

And your (A) is easy to say when you aren't a woman being excluded from serving in the armed forces in a combat role if she wishes to. Lots of things are easy to say "that's easy to say" to -- that doesn't make it a particularly good reason to not do it.

Arrian wrote:On the other hand, the only way to find out is to try, and I do think it is worth trying. <edit> Even though that means people will die in the process of learning the answer.</edit>

Where do you two get off valuing one person's job preference over another person's LIFE? Seriously, What. The. Fuck?

Ghostbear wrote:Your rebuttal in (A) would have worked exactly the same with previous integration in the military: why is it a valid defense now, when it wasn't valid then?

You might want to try reading the thread your posting in. It would help. Numerous posters have answered this.

Ghostbear wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:B) What long term gains? Other than increased numbers that aren't needed, what are women going to bring to the table? I'm not seeing anything.

As for (B).. really? You don't see the benefit of doubling the size of the talent pool you can draw from? You don't think the top 5% of female soldiers could quite possibly be superior to the bottom 5% (or 10% or 20% or whatever) of male soldiers?

As I've said, and you apparently missed multiple times, individual talent can be largely irrelevant.

Ghostbear wrote:You haven't considered that their are certain tasks that a female soldier will just be plains superior at? In WW2, the Soviets found that women were superior snipers to men due to their physical traits. In many parts of the world, a terrified group of civilians is going to be more likely to talk to an armed foreign soldier if they're female. You'll be better able to expect women doing body searches of female civilians won't raise a shitstorm. There's a huge number of potential benefits, and the fact that you couldn't think up of any of them is baffling.

I haven't heard about the sniper thing. Do you know the mechanism behind it? Any sources? As for the other things you mentioned, I thought we were talking about what women would bring to the table in expanded combat roles. Not things they are already doing in non-combat roles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but combat mainly involves running, taking cover, shooting, and the occasional arrest. The other things a military does is non-combat. No?

Ghostbear wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:Actually, the "we must protect the women first" problem people keep refferring to comes from data from the IDF. So no, not an american culture problem.

The issue we're talking about is women in the US marines. The objections we're getting is the attitudes of male soldiers in the US marines -- if those issues exist, then yes, it is an issue of american culture, because everyone involved in the issue is american. That other westernish cultures might share that issue does not mean that the problem is not specific to ours.

That is, in fact, precisely, what specific means.

Ulc wrote:

sourmìlk wrote:I think our responsibility exceeds simply informing women. While it's not up to the government to force women to engage in safe behaviour, neither is it ethical for the government to create a situation in which rape is going to happen very often.

YES! This Argument so much, we should not create a situation where women can be raped, we must prohibit women drinking alcohol! And we certainly can't allow them out the door without being accompanied by a male family member! Or at least a proxy of one, where the male family member has agreed that the proxy can be trusted! And no showing bare skin either! We reduce the chance of rape!

In case anyone didn't notice, the above is irony.

Sarcasm, not irony. And you couldn't have missed the point harder if you tried.

Hypothetically: Women walking down a dark path have a 90% chance of being raped.Sourmilk: That's horrible, we should do something about it. How about we stop building new unlit paths until we retrofit the other paths with lights.Ulc: You sexist bastard! Don't you see how that leads directly to requiring male escorts and hijabs?

No, I really, really don't.

Ulc wrote:We cannot in any ethical way deny women rights that men have, without enforcing a culture where each individual woman's agency are taken away from her, and she's left without the ability to hold a independent agenda - and that's exactly the culture that we call rape-culture, a culture where women are property, and taking the sex you see them "owing you", against their will, is an common act that a lot of people nod at and say "sure, I can understand him" (even if they publicly criticize him). In the short term, denying women the right to enter the military might seem like it's combating rape, but in the long term, it's exactly the kind of rules that directly lead to the base-line rape incident rate being 16-25% (depending on studies and estimates of dark numbers).

You have to be older than 17 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where youth have their agency taken away?You have to be younger than 28 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where people who are older than 30 have their agency taken away?You have to have a high school diploma to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where high school dropouts have their agency taken away?You have to be physically fit to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where the handicapped have their agency taken away?

Ulc wrote:

What is wrong with us?

People like you is what is wrong with us. It's people like you that make well intentioned arguments that directly works against women, it's the idea of "we must protect women, even against their will" that in a few steps gets twisted into "women are not capable of protecting themselves" which in a few more steps means "doing things to a woman without her consent is okay" - and the next step should be so obvious that I'm not even going to show it.

No. It doesn't start with the idea "we must protect women, even against their will". In fact, it doesn't start with an idea at all. It starts with the fact that women are biologically more valuable than men are. Then in a few steps you get to the fact that if you have the genes that give you an "we must protect women, even against their will" attitude you are more likely to pass on those genes.

And the rest is history.

Ulc wrote:It's people being offended of the concept of schrödingers rapist...

Schrödingers rapist is offensive because of how badly it mangles statistics, logic, and common sense.

Ulc wrote:Rape culture, it exist, we're all part of it.

Correlation does not imply causation. I.e.: Do we rape a lot because making jokes about rape removes the stigma, or do we make jokes about rape because rape happens a lot and humour is a coping method?

Ghostbear wrote:You didn't address those points -- you addressed the facts. The facts presented caused you to change your view, however those points are directed at your logic and reasoning. Your reasoning being "if there is a large enough increase in the chance of harm, we shouldn't let them join the military". That logic assumes that you can make a all encompassing rule that works best for everyone in a situation. It doesn't work best for everyone, in fact it works worse for many of them.

We do this ALL THE TIME for EVERYTHING! Did you do a test that enabled you to take a test for the drivers licence, or did you just become old enough? Did you take a psych exam to see if you were responsible enough to have sex, or did you just become old enough? Did you take a political science test to enable you to vote, or did you just become old enough? Etc. Why should/shouldn't the military be any different? I mean sure, in an ideal world, everything would be tailored to the individual. But, this is the real world.

Ghostbear wrote:It also is based on the basic assumption that we can not trust women (and women specifically) to make their own decisions about their lives. That you will decide what risks are acceptable to them, that you are the arbiter of what harms they need to be protected from (for instance, you don't seem to see death as nearly as bad of an outcome, while I expect the vast majority would at least see it as a similar or worse outcome -- otherwise you'd be arguing for the removal of all combat roles for everyone, since people are significantly more likely to die from them!), that you know what is right for them. Your entire argument can be boiled down to you thinking women are too incompetent to make their own decisions, since military service for women is 100% voluntary. Why should you make their decisions?

(Again, I must have missed that part.) I have no problem with a military deciding who it wants to accept into its organization. I have a feeling that the military knows what it needs more than some random civy.

"Why should I make their decisions?" Because they are the ones asking me for a job.

Ghostbear wrote:You have the right to decide to attempt to join the military if you are within a certain age bracket ... Your argument would remove that right from women if the numbers were just a bit different.

Tell me honestly, you didn't get through typing that with a straight face, did you? "You have the right to attempt to exercise your rights given a certain set of of limitations on those rights." And actually it wouldn't stop them from attempting to join. Just in being successful in the attempt.

Ghostbear wrote:Why does it have to be rape specifically? It's certainly one of the most despicable facets of humanity, but it's not the only harm that people can suffer. It's a balance of the short-term harm vs. the long-term less harm. In the short-term, the students would have suffered some increased risk of harm. In the long term, after the integration kinks are worked out, they end up vastly better off. They're no longer held as a separate entity, granted different levels of freedoms for their own "benefit".

Pre-integration, blacks got an education from black schools, whites from white schools. After integration blacks and white got and education from schools. My history knowledge is pretty non-existant on the CRM. How are they vastly better off afterwards? Is it that black schools were of a much lower quality?

yurell wrote:

sourmìlk wrote:It doesn't tell me why being in the military should be considered a right.

It's not a right. What is a right is equal treatment — if you have a set of requirements and they are met, the gender / race / sexual orientation / <insert unrelated trait> of the person shouldn't matter.

I think the crux of the issue is exactly what traits should go on that list.

Nordic Einar wrote:It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.

Shit, did I miss the post where he said it was acceptable for men to be raped, and we shouldn't concern ourselves with man rape. What? He hasn't said that? Oh, okay. So in reality he is actively promoting rape-based discrimination under the guise of "protecting people".

LaserGuy wrote:If rape is the problem, and most of the rapists are men, rather than denying women the ability to work in the armed forces, wouldn't it make sense to deny men the ability to work in the armed forces?

Yes and No. I, for one, prefer to have my rapists halfway across the world being shot at. Rather than, you know, being at home, raping.

How about letting them be separate but equal? Have all female units, and all male units. It beats separate and unequal during the transition, no?

You keep using these terms. They don't mean what you think they do. First off, a slippery slope has to follow a single logical thread along each of it points. It has to make logical sense. If Ulc had said: "If we don't grant women this new privilege, we will never allow them to do anything new" it would have been a slippery slope. Instead he said: "If we don't grant women this new privilege, we will start restricting privileges they already have." Slippery slope is far too generous for this quality of argument. Secondly, it isn't ad-hominem because didn't insult you he insulted your argument. There is a very BIG difference between "Your argument is wrong because you are a misogynist" and "that's a very misogynist argument."

sourmìlk wrote:And don't refer to me as a troll. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm here just to piss you off, and saying so is insulting. You all need to stop insulting me. I know I'm annoying, but if you let that get to you, it's you who has the problem.

Grow up. If you are going to act like an annoying git all the time, don't go whining like a little crybaby when someone calls you on it. FFS.

Hawknc wrote:We've had this debate before about other protected demographics regarding race and sexuality; the armed forces do not get a free pass on discrimination just because of a vague, nebulous argument about fighting capability.

Huh? Yes they do. Or maybe it changes from country to country. But in the US they most definitely do. Did you know that service members aren't allowed to sue their employer? That's right, forcing the military to follow labour laws is against the law. Why? It hurts fighting capability. And fighting capability isn't some vague nebulous concept, it is all the military does. It is their reason for being.

Hawknc wrote:In twenty years when the military culture has adjusted and women are serving alongside men in frontline roles, we're going to look back and wonder what the hell the problem was.

Most likely, either that or we will look back and say "oh we had these problems, they were trivial to fix".

Thesh wrote:If the worry is that the female soldiers will be raped, maybe the military could start taking allegations seriously, instead of covering their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENING".

Sickening thought: Someone gets raped. That person will more than likely being taking some sort of medical leave. Then the rapist get discharged. The military looses two members. If they 'LA LA LA' they lose none, or sometimes one. Very bad incentives here.

sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

nitePhyyre wrote:It isn't about who is to blame. It is about how to get the most effective fighting force.

Those posts weren't about blame, they were about identifying the source of the problem -- once the source is located, you can then attempt to fix it. The problem here is the attitudes and actions of some of the men in the armed forces. So the solution is to get them to not be sexists or rapists to women serving with them (or at all).

Protip: That's what blame means.I think everyone agrees that the solution is to get them to not be sexists or rapists. The question is: Do we expand the scope of the problem then try to fix it, or, do we fix the problem first?

This also leads to the interesting questions of: can we even fix the problem without expanding it first?

Yes and no. Part of the fixing involves preventative measures; part of the fixing involves reacting to offenses. Until women get raped there's no way to tell who the rapists are.

nitePhyyre wrote:I'm sorry, but sucking dick or having pigment isn't comparable to a million years of evolutionary instincts.

Ah yes. Because modern warfare is something men have "instincts" for but women do not. Remind me, what part of caveman life involved driving a Humvee? Basic training is able to get people over their instinctual fear of death, I'm guessing it can equalize men and women if there really are differences.

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ghostbear wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:A) That's easy to say when you aren't the one who is putting their life on the line during this 'short term' period.

And your (A) is easy to say when you aren't a woman being excluded from serving in the armed forces in a combat role if she wishes to. Lots of things are easy to say "that's easy to say" to -- that doesn't make it a particularly good reason to not do it.

Arrian wrote:On the other hand, the only way to find out is to try, and I do think it is worth trying. <edit> Even though that means people will die in the process of learning the answer.</edit>

Where do you two get off valuing one person's job preference over another person's LIFE? Seriously, What. The. Fuck?

Respecting other people means helping them make informed but independent choices. If I want to choose to be a coal miner, astronaut, or soldier, it's my goddamn choice no matter how dangerous the job. It's your responsibility to reduce the danger as much as possible without stepping on my freedoms, while also keeping me informed as to the danger.

In other words, we're not valuing one person's job preference over another person's life; we're respecting one person's valuing their own job preference over the risk to their life.

nitePhyyre wrote:Hypothetically: Women walking down a dark path have a 90% chance of being raped.Sourmilk: That's horrible, we should do something about it. How about we stop women, but not men, from walking on these unlit paths until we retrofit them with lights.Ulc: You sexist bastard! Don't you see how that leads directly to requiring male escorts and hijabs?

No, I really, really don't.

I bolded my correction; now do you see? If not, why?

Ulc wrote:We cannot in any ethical way deny women rights that men have, without enforcing a culture where each individual woman's agency are taken away from her, and she's left without the ability to hold a independent agenda - and that's exactly the culture that we call rape-culture, a culture where women are property, and taking the sex you see them "owing you", against their will, is an common act that a lot of people nod at and say "sure, I can understand him" (even if they publicly criticize him). In the short term, denying women the right to enter the military might seem like it's combating rape, but in the long term, it's exactly the kind of rules that directly lead to the base-line rape incident rate being 16-25% (depending on studies and estimates of dark numbers).

You have to be older than 17 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where youth have their agency taken away?You have to be younger than 28 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where people who are older than 30 have their agency taken away?You have to have a high school diploma to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where high school dropouts have their agency taken away?You have to be physically fit to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where the handicapped have their agency taken away?

Is there a culture for each of those to enforce? Is sex at birth a choice? Is it something that will change over time? Is it a requirement fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all of those is "no".

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ulc wrote:Rape culture, it exist, we're all part of it.

Correlation does not imply causation. I.e.: Do we rape a lot because making jokes about rape removes the stigma, or do we make jokes about rape because rape happens a lot and humour is a coping method?

Both, actually. Such is the Mobius flow of culture: we influence and are influenced by it.

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ghostbear wrote:You didn't address those points -- you addressed the facts. The facts presented caused you to change your view, however those points are directed at your logic and reasoning. Your reasoning being "if there is a large enough increase in the chance of harm, we shouldn't let them join the military". That logic assumes that you can make a all encompassing rule that works best for everyone in a situation. It doesn't work best for everyone, in fact it works worse for many of them.

We do this ALL THE TIME for EVERYTHING! Did you do a test that enabled you to take a test for the drivers licence, or did you just become old enough? Did you take a psych exam to see if you were responsible enough to have sex, or did you just become old enough? Did you take a political science test to enable you to vote, or did you just become old enough? Etc. Why should/shouldn't the military be any different? I mean sure, in an ideal world, everything would be tailored to the individual. But, this is the real world.

Fine, it's the real world. You have to create a one-size-fits-all determination. Is a 5% average increase in rape from "everybody" to "just the military" worth banning women? What's the increase in mortality rate? What's the increase in the rape rate for men in the military? Do you have any basis for comparison here to justify discrimination?

nitePhyyre wrote:I have no problem with a military deciding who it wants to accept into its organization. I have a feeling that the military knows what it needs more than some random civy.

"Why should I make their decisions?" Because they are the ones asking me for a job.

The military shouldn't answer to you because you're a civilian, but as a civilian applicants to the military should answer to you? The military is a tool commanded by civilians; anything else is flat-out dangerous. As such it is all our responsibilities to use them wisely and properly, which includes preventing unnecessary discrimination in their hiring practices.

If you personally were hiring people for a non-military job, would it be okay to turn women away solely because they're women? Because it's sure as shit not legal, at least when sex has nothing to do with the job requirements.

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ghostbear wrote:Why does it have to be rape specifically? It's certainly one of the most despicable facets of humanity, but it's not the only harm that people can suffer. It's a balance of the short-term harm vs. the long-term less harm. In the short-term, the students would have suffered some increased risk of harm. In the long term, after the integration kinks are worked out, they end up vastly better off. They're no longer held as a separate entity, granted different levels of freedoms for their own "benefit".

Pre-integration, blacks got an education from black schools, whites from white schools. After integration blacks and white got and education from schools. My history knowledge is pretty non-existant on the CRM. How are they vastly better off afterwards? Is it that black schools were of a much lower quality?

Often they were, yes (as it turns out, when you group minorities together, it makes it easier to shit only on their heads). It was also better for society in general--by physically separating people from each other based on skin color, you make them the Other. You know who's more likely to be racist against black people? Somebody who's never met a black person before.

nitePhyyre wrote:

yurell wrote:

sourmìlk wrote:It doesn't tell me why being in the military should be considered a right.

It's not a right. What is a right is equal treatment — if you have a set of requirements and they are met, the gender / race / sexual orientation / <insert unrelated trait> of the person shouldn't matter.

I think the crux of the issue is exactly what traits should go on that list.

Do you have a logical reason why "sex" should not go on that list? Preferably one that doesn't rely on evolutionary psychology?

nitePhyyre wrote:

Nordic Einar wrote:It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.

Exactly! That's why we don't bother to give soldiers body armour.

Oh! So what you're saying is, we should just allow women into combat roles, but issue them chastity belts.

nitePhyyre wrote:How about letting them be separate but equal? Have all female units, and all male units. It beats separate and unequal during the transition, no?

nitePhyyre wrote:Hypothetically: Women walking down a dark path have a 90% chance of being raped.Sourmilk: That's horrible, we should do something about it. How about we stop women, but not men, from walking on these unlit paths until we retrofit them with lights.Ulc: You sexist bastard! Don't you see how that leads directly to requiring male escorts and hijabs?

No, I really, really don't.

I bolded my correction; now do you see? If not, why?

I'd like to point out that I previously said that, if it were practical to do it the other way around, that would probably be better (considering that it discriminates against the people more likely to be criminals than victims).

Malice wrote:Separate is inherently unequal.

How do you figure?

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

In a broader sense, to separate two groups of people based on specific criteria will inevitably result in value judgements attaching to those criteria, even if the criteria are entirely arbitrary.

In a specific sense, separating all men from all women to protect female victims from male rapists sends the specific message that all men are rapists and all women are victims. Rapists and victims are unequal.

Those seem like things making separate practically equivalent to unequal, not inherently unequal. But that's a nitpick. However, a situation in which one group is raped and the other isn't isn't particularly equal either. I'd rather go with the safer inequality.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:Those seem like things making separate practically equivalent to unequal, not inherently unequal. But that's a nitpick. However, a situation in which one group is raped and the other isn't isn't particularly equal either. I'd rather go with the safer inequality.

And if members of the group in question state in clear, unambiguous terms, that they'd rather be treated equally--and take that risk--rather than let you make the decision for them? What then?

I have two possible responses and I'm not sure which I prefer. The first is "Okay then, go right ahead." And that seems nice, but it also means you know rape is going to happen more often because of your actions. So there's also the alternative response of "If you want to take a risk, that's fine, but we don't want to be the ones to facilitate that". I'm not uncomfortable with hypothetical desegregation because it allows people to make unsafe choices, I'm uncomfortable with it because we enable those unsafe choices.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:I have two possible responses and I'm not sure which I prefer. The first is "Okay then, go right ahead." And that seems nice, but it also means you're allowing rape to happen under your watch, knowingly. So there's also the alternative response of "If you want to take that risk, that's fine, but we don't want to be the ones to facilitate that". I'm not uncomfortable with hypothetical desegregation because it allows people to make unsafe choices, I'm uncomfortable with it because we enable those unsafe choices.

We're talking about people signing up for a job that involves being shot at by people who want to kill you. We are already 'enabling unsafe choices', here. When a woman tells you she wants to serve in the military, what's going to be your response--"Sorry, but the government feels really strongly about letting you make decisions that put you at any sort of risk. Oh, by the way, did you hear about those soldiers of ours that just got blown to fucking pieces yesterday? Man, talk about crazy!"

This is not rocket surgery. To the contrary: This is simple. We're talking Sesame Street levels of simplicity. Like, to explain it any more simply, I'll need some crayons, construction paper, paste, and a classroom of pre-schoolers. I'd have to build you a goddamn diorama to make this any easier to understand.

There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.

sourmìlk wrote:I have two possible responses and I'm not sure which I prefer. The first is "Okay then, go right ahead." And that seems nice, but it also means you're allowing rape to happen under your watch, knowingly. So there's also the alternative response of "If you want to take that risk, that's fine, but we don't want to be the ones to facilitate that". I'm not uncomfortable with hypothetical desegregation because it allows people to make unsafe choices, I'm uncomfortable with it because we enable those unsafe choices.

We're talking about people signing up for a job that involves being shot at by people who want to kill you. We are already 'enabling unsafe choices', here. When a woman tells you she wants to serve in the military, what's going to be your response--"Sorry, but the government feels really strongly about letting you make decisions that put you at any sort of risk. Oh, by the way, did you hear about those soldiers of ours that just got blown to fucking pieces yesterday? Man, talk about crazy!"

I don't really get this argument. Yes the military is unsafe, but why does that mean we should be okay with making it more unsafe? Even in the military, we should work to maximize safety. It's just that, being a military and all, it's never going to be as safe as, say, programming.

There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.

Problem solved.

New problem (assuming certain hypothetical data) created.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:I don't really get this argument. Yes the military is unsafe, but why does that mean we should be okay with making it more unsafe? Even in the military, we should work to maximize safety.

Bullshit. If this were true, we wouldn't have an active military at all; the safest military is one that doesn't exist.

Safety is balanced with a number of conflicting agendas, including effectiveness, morale, politics, finances, and even social issues. Safety is given more weight than most of these issues--but just because an idea decreases safety by some given amount does not mean it's no longer a credible idea. Some degree of reasonable analysis is expected. I'm not going to advocate barring soldiers from getting showers because of the possibility one might slip on the floor and break their neck. I'm not going to spend ten billion dollars on every individual soldier for some sort of prototype power-armor that renders them invulnerable to harm. Safety might be priority one, but it is not the only priority.

Yes, maybe this increases the likelihood of sexual assault. Are the soldiers involved in this aware of this risk? Do they accept that it could happen? Then let them serve. Why is this argument even happening? Women want to serve their country. They're aware of these risks. Why are we stopping them?

Is it because this is 'in their best interests'? Do you know what's actually 'in their best interests'? Letting them make these decisions for themselves. Do you know what's not 'in their best interests'? Taking these decisions away from them.

I didn't mean "we should work the maximize safety at the expense of everything else." Obviously there are practical limitations on how safe a military can be, I recognize that. I don't see why reducing rape would exceed those limitations.

And I think I explained why we would hypothetically stop them: to not enable risky decision making. I'm not saying we should ban people from making risky decisions, I'm saying that we should refuse to enable them to. It's the difference between, for example, legalizing heroin use and handing it out on the taxpayer's dime.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.